A group of more than 100 Wyoming lawyers and retired judges this week urged the state’s congressional delegation to condemn escalating attacks on the judicial branch and its independence by President Donald Trump and his allies.
Writing in an open letter delivered Wednesday to the delegation, the legal professionals cited a chorus of criticism and threats against judges and judicial authority that’s crescendoed through the first two months of the Trump administration, as the president has sought to assert more power over the federal government while dramatically remaking federal agencies through cuts and layoffs.
Specifically, the letter cited Trump’s calls to impeach a judge he deemed a “Radical Left Lunatic,” billionaire Elon Musk’s repeated use of his social media platform X (formerly known as Twitter) to attack court rulings he’s called “evil” and “an attempted coup,” and social media users who’ve even called for judges to be beheaded or hanged.
“The judiciary lacks the Executive’s bully pulpit or the Legislature’s power to defend itself. It does not have its own social media platform. Judges are not permitted to publicly discuss their decisions. The Judicial Branch must therefore rely on the other branches of government to respect and defend its constitutional role,” states the letter, which was addressed to Sens. John Barrasso and Cynthia Lummis and Rep. Harriet Hageman. “We do not see that happening.
“As our elected federal representatives— and as required by your own oaths—we thus urge you to publicly condemn these threats, affirm judicial independence, and remind Americans that appeals—not violence, intimidation, or invitations to lawlessness—are the constitutional remedy for undesired court decisions.”
Attacks on the judiciary haven’t been limited to public statements and social media posts, the signees wrote. They noted that some Republicans in the House of Representatives have filed articles of impeachment against federal judges. As of earlier this week, GOP lawmakers had pursued impeachment against six judges who’d ruled against the Trump administration in court, according to a count by Reuters.
Those and other threats, the signers went on to write, are part of an effort not to discredit judges alone, but the rule of law.
“We understand there is an appetite among sizeable members of the electorate for radical change at any cost, but the growing reckless disdain for the independence and security of our judiciary must be resisted by anyone sworn to uphold our Constitution,” the letter reads. “That includes us, and it certainly includes you. Silence in the face of such threats from those with a duty to uphold the Constitution will be properly seen as complicity.”
The letter signees include former Gov. Mike Sullivan; retired Wyoming Supreme Court Chief Justices Marilyn Kite, Michael Golden, Michael Davis and E. James Burke; retired U.S. District Court Chief Judge William Downes and former Wyoming Attorneys General Gay Woodhouse and Patrick Crank.
The letter signers hope the delegation will be “allies” in upholding the constitutional structure central to the nation’s democracy, retired state district judge Tim Day told WyoFile.
“We really hope that our congressional delegation will do the same, and that they won’t sit on their hands, and they will identify these as dangerous actions and dangerous words.”
Motivations for signing
The letter is not political, and it aims to ensure the courts remain independent of political influence, Day said. Undermining the independence of the judiciary, disregarding legal decisions and not defending the separation of powers paves the way for oppression, he warned.
The U.S. Constitution anticipated such threats, he noted.
“It’s exactly the kind of thing that our founding fathers put in the first three articles of the Constitution because of what happened with the colonies with England,” Day said. “They were oppressed. So they didn’t want that to happen again.
“We’re asking our congressional delegation, two of whom are lawyers, to acknowledge that these are basic foundational tenants in our Constitution, critical to our democracy and the proper functioning of our government, with separation of powers and checks and balances.”
Sullivan, a lawyer who served two terms as Wyoming’s governor, also hopes the delegation will “recognize the need to step up and respond.” He said his decision to sign the letter reflects “a concern about the administration’s policy on the rule of law and judges and lawyers and matters associated with the rule of law, and I thought it reflected well upon the concerns, and was happy to sign it.”
After Trump called for the impeachment of U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg for issuing an order that sought to halt deportation flights, U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts issued a rare public statement. In it, Roberts stressed that two centuries of precedent have established that “impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.” That proper response, he added, was the normal appellate process.
American governance, as envisioned by the country’s founders, relies on respecting the judiciary as being just as critical to a healthy democracy as the other two branches of government, explained Kite, who served on the Wyoming Supreme Court for 15 years, including four as chief justice.
If you undo the Constitution just to get things done, you no longer have a free and open democratic society, she said.
“The rule of law isn’t what you want it to be,” Kite said. “It is what is established in the laws, and the laws are interpreted by the courts, and that’s been the case for 250 years.”
When asked about his motivations for signing the letter, Kite’s former colleague on the state’s high court, Michael Golden, recalled his decades practicing law, including four years in the Judge Advocate General’s Office and another 24 on the Wyoming Supreme Court. Golden said he believed strongly in the state and federal constitutions, along with the rule of law, and was alarmed by actions now taking place in Washington.
“If we lose respect [for] our courts, if we lose sight of the rule of law and our Constitution, then that will be what destroys our country,” he told WyoFile. “And that just speaks to the very heart of what we’re concerned about.”
Retired state district judge Peter Arnold was more blunt about his motivations for speaking out — and whether it will influence Wyoming’s congressional delegation.
“I signed the letter about which you contacted me because I strongly disagree that it is proper to speak about judges the way Trump is,” he wrote in an email to WyoFile. “I am not naive, I understand the pressures faced by our legislators and doubt the letter will do much good but I would be remiss if I didn’t express my beliefs publicly to our legislators.
“In my mind, Congress has a constitutional responsibility to publicly disagree with Trump,” wrote Arnold, a Republican who served on the Laramie County GOP General Committee and who was censured by the panel for raising the same issues. “Again, it is naive for me to expect much but to do nothing is not an option.”
Congressional delegation
WyoFile emailed questions about the letter to Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman early Wednesday evening. As of publication time Thursday afternoon, none had responded.
But in previous comments, speeches and letters, the lawmakers gave some insight into their views on the recent attacks on judges.
On Feb. 10, for example, the delegation held a tele-town hall and were asked about what Republicans could do to stop Democrats and judges from blocking parts of Trump’s agenda.
Hageman, a lawyer herself, accused judges of “clearly acting politically” and suggested the administration expedite appeals or even outright ignore judges.
“When you have a judge who issues the decision saying that the Secretary of the Treasury is not allowed to access the documents of the Treasury, you’ve got a rogue judge,” Hageman said. “And I think that you may see the House moving forward with some ideas of what we’re going to do in that regard.
“One of the things that I think is going to happen, and what this administration needs to do, is really work to expedite the appeals on these absolutely outrageous decisions. It’s another form of lawfare, and it is just another example of how our system was broken with these rogue judges that have been appointed by Obama and Biden especially. They’re gonna have to go through the process. I wish I had a different answer for you.
“I will tell you one thing that I’d like to consider, if I was the Secretary of Treasury … I might just say, ‘This is my agency. My responsibility is to take care of these records. I absolutely have to have access to them,’ and dare the judge to hold him in contempt. That’s what I might consider.”
Hageman went on to say that such a step — disobeying a judge and daring them to hold a person in contempt — is not something she’d normally recommend. But she went on to suggest there were times when it would be necessary to do just that.
“And I just, I think at some point you got to tell these judges, ‘You really do not have the power that you think that you do. You want to hold me in contempt of court, have at it, baby.’”
More recently, Barrasso took aim at “activist district court judges” in a speech earlier this month from the Senate floor. He accused those judges of “protecting criminals, terrorists and corrupt bureaucrats from the accountability that voters demand.”
“Let me be clear. When partisan, unelected district court judges try to micromanage the president of the United States, it isn’t judicial review,” he said. “It isn’t checks and balances. It is purely partisan politics — and it is wrong. Radical district judges will not succeed in blocking Republicans from getting America back on track.”
Lummis has been publicly supportive of many of Trump’s efforts to downsize the federal government. On Wednesday, Trump endorsed her for reelection.
WyoFile editors Tennessee Watson and Rebecca Huntington, along with writer CJ Baker, contributed to this report.
Sorry but I just don’t have too much faith in President Trump and his acolytes. Anyone who subscribes to his continuous lying and malfeasance is suspect in my book. Hopefully all the judges and lawyers will sort this all out and we’ll be on our merry way.
It’s a shame that the letter did not also condemn Trump’s attempts to blackmail, and extort bribes from, law firms that have represented his political opponents – even going as far as to threaten to deny lawyers access to government buildings (including courthouses!) where they must go to do their work. Legal representation is a Constitutional right, and soliciting and receiving bribes is a crime that should be punished by impeachment. But would any member of our Congressional delegation dare to acknowledge this, much less take action? Nope. They don’t represent us. They don’t uphold the law as they’ve sworn to do. They are Trump sycophants. Expect nothing from them.
Deconstructing the judiciary is a key step in insurgency. Study Mao or better yet Counterinsurgency Warfare by David Galula. What team orange and the Project 2025 misfits are doing is a textbook move.
Aren’t you comparing apples to oranges here? President Trump’s agenda-the agenda we the people voted for-has been attacked by selected partisan judges-both federal & local! Judges who’s children have been linked to liberal politicians; i.e. Biden, and should have and adhered to rules of judicial ethics and recused themselves from any decisions involving the president. But you don’t mention that?? And, where were you when a sitting US senator stood on the steps of the supreme court and threatened a sitting associate justice of the US supreme court if he/they didn’t render the decision he wanted on abortion?? Did I miss that?? As with most “news” publications, you cherry pick and obfuscate the issues, and therefore undermine your credibility! You would like Trump to rollover and let the left have their way without a fight-thank God he’s a leader who won’t be doing that, and that’s a big reason why he’s in the White House.
Your kool-aid mix is a bit too strong sir. Perhaps you should turn your TV off and not believe your echo chamber.
“Those who can be convinced of absurdities can also be convinced to commit atrocities ” -Voltaire
You believe absurdities sir. Hopefully rational thought prevails before you’re convinced to commit atrocities.
Thank you for voicing so eloquently what I believe most Wyomingites want and need. Dignity, intellect and integrity.
An enthusiastic thank you to the individuals who had the courage to write this letter and another to each of the above respondents who wrote in support of it. At the top of my very long list of questions right now is: when and who will take real action to stop the mere possibility of electing convicted felons to the highest office of this great nation?? I absolutely cannot wrap my mind around how we got here; nonetheless how we can get out of this mess with its sycophants sucking the life blood out of the system so many have lived and died for.
I have dedicated my entire adult life to the rule of law (48years) to the rule of law, in law enforcement, private and public law practice (as civil, defense, prosecution, corporate and public entity representations) and in the judiciary as a municipal judge. I know many of the signers of this letter personally and I hold them in the highest respect and esteem. They are entirely correct and I see extremely sinister motivations in the unprecedented and simply UNTRUE attacks on our judiciary and state and Federal Bars! The main way to resist is to stand up for these earnest, honest and patriotic professionals!!!
I disagree with Barrasso. It is checks and balances. We have three branches of government for a reason. They have to hold each other accountable and the president is not above that.
As George Washington predicted in his valedictory more than 200 years ago, political parties have gutted the Framers’ system of checks and balances. Parties now control ballot access, political money, and the workings of legislatures. (The post of “Majority Leader” is nowhere in the state or Federal Constitution, and yet these party apparatchiks exercise vast, virtually unchecked power.) Our Congresscritters – all three of them – are accountable not to the people but to their party’s bosses, in particular a certain orange tinted one. To the point where they are actively advocating for the rule of law, due process, and the rights to free speech and legal representation to be overturned. Sad and embarrassing.
Thank you to those who signed this open letter. And apologies to Larry, Moe & Curly Joe for the B-grade interpretation of their act by our Congressional delegation.
If there is not a mechanism to recall and replace lummis, barrasso, and hegeman there should be. they are pushing this country towards civil war. we have three branches of government that are equal, for a reason.
This attack on the judiciary is just part of the planned attack on our democracy. Attacking the different agencies of government, attacking the very rule of law by AG Bondi. Trying to bully and control the media, college’s and universities, private law firms, private companies, detach us from allies like NATO, WHO, Canada, Denmark. All while aligning us with Russia. We voted in the UN alongside Russia, China, north Korea and Iran for the first time ever. This is the playbook of Russia, Hungary, Turkiye authoritarians.
The Trump attack on the judiciary is part of a planned attack on the constitution and rule of law in this country. He and the GOP Congress are trying to destroy our democracy. They’re attacking government agencies, judges, private law firms, private businesses and the media. The effort includes controlling cultural institutions like the Kennedy Center, the Smithsonian, NPR and PBS, Colleges and University’s. They are following the path of Putin, Hungary, Turkiye and others. To think he’s just saving American us to be blind to history.
👏🏻 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻
There is nothing inherently wrong with question or critique of the justice system. Why is it above reproach? It was not intended to be higher than the other branches of government, yet it’s implied upon us that we should worship those who wear a black robe. The robes, flowery language and standing when a government employee walks into a room are ancient symbolism. Shall we offer a sacrifice for them? No one that works for the people should be above question, and that is exactly what every person on the bench is. A government employee funded by your money.
My esteemed former colleagues seem to be of one mind regarding the criticism of judges. Many good and valid points. I wish they would have been made with equal fervor when Justice Kavanaugh was being stalked a few months ago, or Justice Thomas was being excoriated by the far left recently. Perhaps an oversight. Or, perhaps, Teno Roncalio was correct when he coined his most memorable phrase: “It all depends on whose ox is being gored”.
In any event, the letter and the column about the letter bring to mind an excellent article touching on the subject, published on 3/21 in the Free Press and entitled, “Are the Venezuelan Deportations Unconstitutional?” by Jed Rubenfeld. I commend it highly as an unbiased and even-handed exploration of the issue. I posted a comment to that article which I think applies to the issue raised by the letter “signed by more than100 lawyers and retired judges” (sounds vaguely familiar?). I offer it here:
The Free Press Logo
Jill Beraud liked your comment on Are the Venezuelan Deportations Unconstitutional?.
The Free Press Logo
Jill Beraud liked your comment on Are the Venezuelan Deportations Unconstitutional?.
“This is a terrific, level-headed and unbiased piece. My only points are these: First, Thank God Trump has committed to obeying judicial orders. A “commitment to obey” should not be necessary, but we must realize Trump, and many around him, are not lawyers and therefore view the issues as laymen, not learned men of the law. A second point: 50 years of trial practice before retirement causes me to hold a firm conviction that judges are imperfect creatures, just like the rest of us. They make mistakes. They suffer from the same foibles as all humans, try though they might, to be always judicious. Unfortunately, it’s one pant’s leg at a time for the judge just like the President. This Judge did not do a very good job of judging last Saturday night and that is at least part of the problem. Comity, respect, self awareness, and a sensitivity to the separation of powers was a hallmark when I practiced. It is needed once again, crisis or no crisis. I’m persuaded that Trump, over the past 8 years has learned and is practicing, sometimes clumsily, some of the characteristics and ideals mentioned above. The Judge would do well to follow his lead.”
Not everyone is a lawyer. Speaking to the layman/citizen –
Threats, intimidation and disrespect are never OK. Disagreement and honest criticism are always OK.
Just a reminder, if the judicial system that Trump advocates had been in place four years ago, he would not be sitting in the White House. He would be sitting in an “orange jumpsuit”at one of our Federal rehabilitation centers.
The irony of this whole situation is hard to fathom.
As far as our delegation is concerned, we all remember the cartoon of the three monkeys—hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Need i say more!
Perhaps these very learned legal minds might benefit from reading Alan Dershowitz’s book ‘Get Trump’ detailing how our legal system has been unbelievably corrupted to throw as many road blocks as possible, some legal and many illegal, to thwart any progress Trump might make in reestablishing our government as ‘of/by/for the people’. AG Bill Barr made the same mistake protecting ‘institutions’ over corrupt practices. Those corrupting our institutions must be called out and held accountable. The lawfare has to end, or we truly are entering a major Constitutional crisis.
Alan Dershowitz has a celebrity reputation as a go to source for weighty legal matters. He has also represented Trump, which makes the premise of his book questionable. I suspect “Get Trump” is more about his making money than being a thoughtful legal analysis about the state of the rule of law in America.
Having practiced law for over 40 years in this state I know many of those lawyers and judges who signed the letter. The signers that I know are all well respected in our profession and are at least as knowledgeable about the rule of law as Dershowitz may claim to be. To attempt to denigrate them by describing them as “very learned legal minds” and suggesting they should read Dershowitz’s book for the “truth” about Trump’s travails and any supposed corruption of the legal system is disingenuous at best. It is clear that the members of the Wyoming Bar understand what is really at stake, Dershowitzs’ book and other’s contrary opinions notwithstanding.
Appreciate your feedback Jim. I have to admit, I’m no lawyer. However from Rep John Kennedy’s assessment, it appears the use of universal injunctions dozens upon dozens of times against Trump seems weaponized since they:
1) lack any Constitutional basis within Article III
2) lack any SCOTUS rulings to provide basis
3) lack any Statutory basis
4) lack any historical common law basis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmBDTA733PM
Again, I freely raise my hand to admit I’m no lawyer so I can only parrot others’ assessments like Kennedy’s above. But I wonder since some District courts now believe they can run the Executive branch, will they next decide to run Congress? Is Speaker Johnson’s job also in peril? How ’bout SCOTUS? Should we disband that third branch since our Article III judges now have plenary powers over all three branches of our Federal government? Absurd, sure. But precedent is precedent, and that’s a pretty big deal in the legal field correct?
Maybe the District Judges should stick to their well defined Constitutional swim lane within Article III and if there’s a need to work the class action angle that might be more appropriate. It’ll be fascinating to see how Congress sorts this out, especially since SCOTUS continues to sit on their hands and sing ‘la la la’ to themselves.
The authors and signers of this letter to our Wyoming delegation have taken a courageous step to right the sinking ship. As a Wyoming Republican resident I wholeheartedly support this letter and fully expect a response from Barrasso, Lummis and Hageman to be publicly reported very soon.
I would like to publicly thank every member of the bar that signed this letter to Senators Barrasso and Lummis and Representive Hageman.
Putting political differences aside when a crisis arises is how this country should work. Everyone coming together, focused on the common good is what truly makes this country great. Not a silly slogan printed on a red ball cap.
Anyone want to take a bet on how many of our congressional delegation respond to the letter? The concerned individuals who devoted their time and thought in developing the communication represent the legal world, but they are also constituents of these three congressional delegates. So, come on delegation, write a response! “Have at it, baby.”
It is sad how wall like it is trying to talk to our Wyoming representation, but if there is one thing we know in Wyoming it’s the destructive power of wind. Here’s hoping that the constant sandblasting of these walls will either break through and be heard or push them over making room for representatives that will actual listen and act in their state’s best interest.
If people are saying that the judiciary should not be influenced by politics, it’s way too late for that. All you have to do is look at the Supreme Court of the United States.
Best comment today. How many judicial appointments has Trump made? Hypocrisy at its finest. Consider how Trump slithered through the fingers of justice with the help of judges he appointed.
I commend the distinguished members of the Wyoming bar who wrote this comprehensive letter to our congressional delegation. I respect its many signatories; count me among other Wyoming lawyers who would have been honored to sign it, too. Absolutely nothing is more important to the preservation of our country than respect for the US Constitution, which our delegation has sworn to defend. Name calling a judge “rogue” when one member doesn’t agree with a judicial decision, or denigrating the check-and-balance system as another member does, is the antithesis of defending our founding document. If we want to continue to exist as a constitutional democracy—and we do—the time has come for our delegation to remember that there are three co-equal branches of government, NOT a unitary executive. Each branch must respect the others. The public understands this concept. Our delegation would do well to catch up with it.
Kudos to Wyoming’s judges and lawyers. Their courage stands in marked contrast to the cowardice of our Congressional Delegation and the State GOP. Our immediate challenge now is to make sure that federal elections are held in 2026. There is some doubt of that, given the threats to GOP dominance in the House of Representatives, e.g., the upcoming special elections in Florida where Democrats appear to be running strong as well as Trump’s withdrawal of Elise Stefanik’s nomination to be UN Ambassador to protect her seat in New York. I can easily see Trump declaring another bogus national emergency (Insurrection Act) in 2026 to prevent elections from being held.
Judging the photo, I would say that the three goofballs are laughing at the Wyoming voter, and knowing full well that they will be voted back into office.
“It’s better to keep your mouth shut and appear stupid than open it and remove all doubt.” – Mark Twain. As a lawyer, Hageman knows better than her attacks on the judges and judiciary reflect. But in pontificating on the role of the judiciary she leaves no doubt about the level of her stupidity. She is an embarrassment to the legal profession. Just because she gave up being a lawyer to put on the trappings of a politician does not mean she discarded her knowledge of the fundamental teaching she learned about the Constitution, rule of law, and the independence of the judiciary.
I’m glad to see fellow lawyers and legal practitioners in our state stand up for the rule of law, something we are supposed to do every single day in our profession. There is a similar national letter available for sign on from judges, lawyers, and legal organizations coordinated by Democracy Forward, an organization bringing many of the successful legal cases against the Administration. I encourage all lawyers to sign it. Also, I wonder if anyone has looked into filing an ethics complaint with the Bar alleging Rep. Hageman is not adhering to her oath of admission. Openly saying members of the Executive Branch can and should willingly ignore court orders is not by any stretch of the imagination obeying and defending the Constitution.
It is clear that Lummis, Barrasso, and Hageman have no desire to put their oath to the Constitution first. They are cowards. They do not represent Wyoming citizens or Wyoming’s constitution either.
Sheryl, although I fully agree with your assessment of our three elected WY reps, their cowardice is what makes them a true reflection of the WY constituents who overwhelmingly supported them at the polls. Although somewhat new in our state’s history, moral cowardice is now WY’s defining feature.
Thanks for your article, sir. The quoted comments of our congressional delegation are quite telling. I often write to the three of them myself as an exercise in civic responsibility and usually get the same kind of party line response. Although I have to say, Liz Cheney’s replies made much more sense, even if I did not agree sometimes. However, we have all seen how actually making sense and following the constitution got her a primary. I do fear that the judiciary not having anyone but the congress to enforce their rulings, was a flaw that the founding fathers may not have foreseen in their plan for the separation of powers. A flaw that if considered, was probably discounted by the assumption that our legislative branch would uphold their oaths of office above partisanship, loyalty the sitting executive, or responsibility to their constituents. However, on today’s extremely polarized morality spectrum, partisan worship for the executive and responsibility to their billionaire donor class have come to nullify those separate but equal powers discussions, so carefully considered in the construction of our fledgling democracy/republic. I would venture a guess, that if they could see the precarious judicial cliff we are perched upon today, they would have but one very loud social media response: WTF??
Here’s a little reminder for the MAGAVerse that thought his threat was just a joke to rile up us radical, lunatics on the left. Trump said he would be a dictator on day 1. It’s day 66 and he still a dictator.